I agree. I've seen plenty of films shot on film that stink (ALEXANDER comes to mind).

heath

Alexander, Kingdom of Heaven, and tons more. But, why judge the medium, obviously these films are flawed, although the images certainly looked great in many scenes. :-)

I didn't particularly find Sin City to be a good film, but there were some great images in there.

No I would not be surprised about Sundance, I have a friend going with her mini DV film and I worked on an HDV film this last summer which is being prepped for Cannes this year. Why assume I have some mindset against HD or Video? I already said I didn't.

As for these films, how many have wide panaromic shots? Very long shots? I would guess none. Choice of format also determines look, style, etc. And film has, at this point, greater clarity and resolution hands down.

My point is Film is here and its great, but I doubt very many will remain as skilled at its use if everyone decides they rather stop learning how to use it to its full potential or continue pushing its barriers.

HD is also here, but still has to prove itself as capable as film, but time will tell that tale.

I remain willing to learn both, and whatever works for my story when I decide to tell it.

Charles, what you say is so true and you can see this demonstrated on network HDTV shows. There is so much variation in quality in different programs and it can likely be attibuted to the relatively low production budgets they have, compared to major movies. Many HDTV programs show bad lighting in certain scenes, especially in indoor settings. It takes a lot of time and expertise, to give good illumination to all the facets of an indoor shot. You often see badly-exposed scenes, followed by gorgeous ones, as there's a good deal of inconsistency. The bigger-budget shows, many of them on CBS, show a lot more preparation in the lighting. Much of the better exposure you see probably comes from more careful staging of the actors and objects, to make the most of the light and to balance the illumination.

As time goes by, I expect that the greatly increased challenges of HD shooting will be offset by the collectively growing experience of the crews. They'll learn the tricks needed to make things come out better, even without a lot of time or money to spend. The directors want things arranged in a certain way, to tell the story exactly as they visualize it. But, in HDTV, they may have to compromise a bit, to facilitate better whole-scene exposure. Lighting directors have always been very important, but I think their role in HDTV production will become even more significant and the action directors may have to defer to their advice more often.

Brian Duke wrote: "Too many DPs and tech people are way too concerned with look rather than story------"
-----------------------------------

The masses of people, who for decades languished in their low expectations and thought VHS was all they needed, have finally awakened. Now, they are beginning to expect, I should say demand, both great stories and beautiful
scenes. Those who operated with only one of those values in mind, will have to rise up and bring together the best of both those things.

I put together what I thought was a nice and sharp-looking little video production of local wildlife. I did this just to send out DVDs of it to a number of my friends, during the holidays. One family couldn't get it to play on any of the equipment they had, so I offered to make them an S-VHS copy.
They said, "Nah, we don't ever watch videotapes any more, now that we've got DVDs of movies and HDTV on cable". This is the same bunch who five years ago, I had a hard job persuading to get an S-VHS VCR, so they wouldn't have to settle for 240-line VHS any longer. They were stunned by the visual improvement from what I put on an S-VHS tape for them back then and now, it isn't good enough for them to bother watching. I guess this is actually a good sign.

Regardless of what is most important… true cinema is at its apex only when stunning visuals and storytelling coexist. As a matter of conscience, I don’t like it when people separate the two, and what I think makes film so unique as an art form is the cohesion of elements required. At heart I would consider myself, and hopefully most of the people here, simply storytellers. Only the medium in which we tell our stories is a fundamentally aesthetic one, whereby a major part of the storytelling process is accomplished visually. Therefore I would argue that, as a means to tell a story, the visuals are just as important as anything.

27 days later made alot of money and A liked the film as well. But it was shot in DV. The medium is the message. Using the strength of a medium with a good story will make any thing work, digital or film.

It's the same thing the world over with filmmakers. You have your dilettantes who want everything to look professionally polished and you have your true artists who have a passion for telling a good story. Medium be damned.

To paraphrase Martin Scorsese "You don't make films because you want to, you make films because you have to, you have no choice"

Scorsese once said "kids" can make a black and white film for $10,000 (this was in 1998 during an interview). I took that seriously and made my first film on DV a year later.

I think a certain amount of skill and patience is required to make great films, along with a great cast and crew, and good gear.

heath

I've split off the talk about Charles' experience with the Genesis:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=67040

Thanks, Rob!

heath

You can find the trailer at Apple: http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/supermanreturns/hd/

For the latter post a request in the new thread I created (see link two posts above).